Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America? (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America?
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I imagine asking her if this was something she wanted or not would probably be the best way to make that call.

LOL. That's not the way it works. That would make it decidedly "unromantic".

quote:
Indeed- romanticization is one of the way our culture gives a nod to such behaviors. People learn what should consider to be romantic from their culture, and in that way their culture can teach them to expect, enjoy, and perpetuate damaging behaviors. That's the fundamental nature of any systemic problem- the system reinforces itself by teaching people that the damage it perpetuates is normal and how things should be.
Oh I agree! I think bringing her a six pack of beer and a copy of Mass Effect 2 is romantic, but she doesn't agree! The system has hypnotized her into this silly ideal of roses and candlelit dinners and little surprise notes and cards. Dang the system!

To me, nothing is more romantic then when she grabs my crotch. Without permission!

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a special.feeling, Lloyd.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair to Pyr, i think behind his distorted vocabulary, his actual position is less extreme that his.misused word lead us to believe. He seems to classify implicit as a.subcategory of "explicit;" thus his strange assertion that someone who goes to a dance "explicitly" consents to be asked to dance. Correct me.if.I'm wrong, Pyr but you seem to acknowledge.that consent.can reasonably be inferred from the facts. If you post your phone number and a picture of yourself on Craigslist Men seeking Women, a woman might reasonably infer.that you have invited.her to.text.or.call you. You.might tell her.not.to.call again, but.if you accuse.her.of.violating your space when she first contacts you, you're being unreasonable.

[ August 13, 2014, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
The value in persistence isn't "earning" sex, the value in persistence is getting mroe opportunity to make a connection. It's the connection that sometimes leads to the sex, not a gameboy version of continuing to talk to a woman.

If you want to change your position such that persistence now means "continuing to interact and build a platonic relationship", sure, that's fine. Up till now, persistance has meant "Continue to attempt to convince them to enter a romantic relationship" which crosses the line into coercive behavoir because it attempts to manipulate them toward an end that you desire that they've already expressed a disinterest in.
Lol, now you're arguing with yourself about your strawman? I never added platonic.
In which case you're talking nonsense. Continually badgering someone that has declined you for a romantic relationships is harassment. No means no until that person freely decides to change it without you disrespecting the current state of their answer by trying to push the issue.
Again, no, I didn't say what you made up for me to say. One doesn't have to be "badgering" or engaging in harassment (which again is generally illegal). You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.
quote:
The boy in the story appears to believe he needs to continue the relationship. And because of tha, (or even if he doesn't) he certainly acts as if he is entitled to ignore her expressed wish to end the relationship and invade her personal space in an attempt to manipulate her into continuing it.
There's no "attempt to manipulate" inherent or implied in his action. To the extent he's expressing "need" its clear he's expressing want or desire.

And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space. There are movies where people do act as if entitled, there was an awful Ashton Kucher movie where he rammed his car into the locked gate of his separated wife's house, that would be a far better example of entitled behavior.

Like it or not, you're not providing evidence of a culture that is approving inappropriate behaviour, you're attempting to move the bar to force others to view acceptable behavior as inappropriate.

And Pete, I don't think your charitable interpretation of what he's saying is correct. I think he's advocating some kind of relationship standard that would most closely approximate Vulcan (without Pon Farr that is). That completely ignores what most people of both genders actually enjoy about their own interpersonal relationships. And declaring anything that doesn't meet the standard as inherently abusive - and if you can't see it its because of indoctrination, not that you may be right that it's not abusive.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trying to sort out Pyr's rape culture argument is like trying to reconstruct a crime scene in a blender. It's difficult to extricate manufactured facts, from distorted analysis, from Pyr's entirely reinvented vocabulary.

[ August 16, 2014, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.

I think you're approaching it from the other side of the river, Tom. My guess is you already understood the gist of the argument before Pyr made it, or understood the underlying assumptions/claims before Pyr attempted to communicate them. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think the problem is Pyr trying to take people on the other bank across the river in his boat. Maybe there is a problem with his boat. Maybe you can try to bring them across the river since you understand the argument.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.

Tom, if you want me to believe that you understand what Pyr is trying.to say, then by all means articulate.it in good.English, assuming that the the idea is coherent enough to articulate.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Again, no, I didn't say what you made up for me to say. One doesn't have to be "badgering" or engaging in harassment (which again is generally illegal). You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.

Which is a totally made up suggestion. If you've inquired about a romantic relationship and been rejected, that doesn't mean that you should vanish and not be able to continue on on a platonic level afterwards, and a possibility exists that the person you're interested may eventually change their mind. But your suggestion that you should keep leaning on them in a way that they've told you they are currently uninterested in is, in fact, harassment. By all means, work on being a good friend, but you don't do any favors by making yourself into a false friend because you're just putting on a pretense to get into their pants. That whole "nice guy" behavoir is exceptionally invasive and emotionally damaging to everyone involved.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Nice_guy_syndrome

quote:
And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space.
You're suggesting that somewhere, off camera, he asked if it was okay to confronter on her own property and present himself to her in a way such that she was forced to interact with him instead of freely choosing to do so on her own terms? HE didn't seek permission for his behavior. He acted as if he was entitled to behave that way- as if it were permissible for him do do that unless stopped, rather than being something that he should seek permission for and not do unless clearly allowed to.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyr but you seem to acknowledge.that consent.can reasonably be inferred from the facts. If you post your phone number and a picture of yourself on Craigslist Men seeking Women, a woman might reasonably infer.that you have invited.her to.text.or.call you
Not that it can be inferred, but rather that it is explicitly communicated by certain conventions. POsting a personal ad is an explicit invitation to reply. Presenting yourself as an available partner at a dance is explicit consent to be asked to dance. Inference only enters when you try to assume non-contextual consent above and beyond the immediate, narrow invitation to contextual social interaction. In each case the action is an invitation to be honestly asked for consent to move one step further and no more (and does not, in any way communicate an assurance of a positive response to that question)

What's more important, though, is that such consent to be approached is not read into public areas that people don't actively come to for socialization by choice. Public transit, grocery stores, etc... Where a person must use them to get about their life. Forcing social interaction in those cases, without some form of explicit context or prior relationship that invites it can actively serve to make those places be regarded as unsafe, if not outright dangerous. which translates in turn to significant social and emotional damage.

[ August 17, 2014, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, why are YOU entitled to.say what HE can do on HER property? Who died and made you the consent fairy?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dont accept your world where trying to communicate with someone is a violation of that person's unstated "right" to ignore you.

Standing in someone's driveway to get their attention is acceptable unless they specifically forbid it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Standing in someone's driveway to get their attention is acceptable unless they specifically forbid it.

No, it's not. Not even remotely. It's their driveway, it's your obligation to get permission, not theirs to chase you away because you want to harass them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How the hell.do you get their permission to step in the driveway before you get their attention? That's like.saying you need someone's permission before you call them.or.ring their.door.bell.

That's really backwards. How does.anyone even.initiate.contact on Planet Pyr?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, why are YOU entitled to.say what HE can do on HER property? Who died and made you the consent fairy?

Because that's the nature of property. Without authorization from the owner, the very nature of property demands that the default be no permission for anyone not the owner. Otherwise the intruder effectively has greater rights to the property in that regard than the nominal owner.

You are, to be sure homing in on exactly why this plays into rape culture- a base line attitude that certain people are allowed to do whatever they want, unless very explicitly told to stop. And Then maybe not, as long as they only don't stop at a rate that other people like them want to be able to cross that boundary as well and invalidate the request of the person they're intruding upon.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" You are, to be sure homing in on exactly why this plays into rape culture- a base line attitude that certain people are allowed to do whatever they want, unless very explicitly told to stop"

"Whatever they want" is not a reasonable.extrapolation of.what i.said.

Please.stop.making crap up.and.putting.it.in my mouth.

I said you can do.SOME things without explicit permission unless.denied. step in a driveway. Ring a doorbell. Call someone.

It's complete.crap for you to claim i am saying you can do.ANYTHING under those.circumstances.

You cant touch aomeone intimately or.unnecessarily without some sort of what you call."explicit" permission. (Which in real english includes.permission reasonably inferred.under.the circumstances. (E.g. a woman goes.to.see a.gynocologist and gets in position).

On Halloween kids will walk up your driveway ans say trick.or.treat.

And if you gently dump.a romantic nerd you can probably expect.a gentle.serenade from the driveway.

You might as.well accuse trick.or treaters of.rape, sam i am.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Whatever they want" is not a reasonable.extrapolation of.what i.said.
Except for the fact that that's exactly what the attitude becomes in the culture at large. You may not like that consequence of the attitude, but that doesn't help the people that have to deal with those consequences on a day to day basis as others invade their space and privacy because the don't respect the boundaries of the object of their interest and seek positive permission instead of assuming consent and ignoring attempts to decline.

quote:
I said you can do.SOME things without explicit permission unless.denied. step in a driveway. Ring a doorbell. Call someone.
But not actually try to force an interaction. Last I checked, "playing a boom box" was not considered a form of knocking on the door. And his intent in the action wasn't to request permission to be there, it was specifically to undermine her stated wish to end the relationship.

quote:
On Halloween kids will walk up your driveway ans say trick.or.treat.
If you turn the lights on (and generally put up at least some inviting decoration) to invite them. You don't go up to every house on Halloween, just the ones that clearly communicate their participation.

quote:
And if you gently dump.a romantic nerd you can probably expect.a gentle.serenade from the driveway.
Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Except for the fact that that's exactly what the attitude becomes in the culture at large."

"Except for"? Delusional. Even if that was the attitude of the culture at large (even if there was.a.single monolithic culture at large) it still.would.be boorish of.you to.have inserted.that claim into what *I* said.


Boorish the first time, and.outright thuggish when you did it.the second.time against my explicit objections.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries."

Absolutely. And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries. You dont have.the right to just suck your thumb and require.the world to.read your mind.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" But not actually try to force an interaction. Last I checked, "playing a boom box" was not considered a form of knocking on the door"

Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention. Playing a boom box as softly as he did, is well.within those parameters. You would say that the fact that he didnt pull on with a deadly weapon (a car) and used *fewer* decibels than a doorbell or horn makes him *more* intrusive? Beh. Sure you're not just pissy about him being imaginative? (The same.quality which seems.to cauee his ex to be amused and delighted by the incident?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention
Which is a horrible practice, lazy, rude, and disruptive of people outside of the one that you're communicating with.

quote:
(The same.quality which seems.to cauee his ex to be amused and delighted by the incident?
Since a script writer told her she should be such, not because it's a natural reaction to be amused by someone that you're trying to push out of your life actively forcing themselves back into it. That's part of what makes that scene problematic. Instead of highlighting the fact that he was using bad and outright creepy tactics, it instead blesse them and tells people that they should be happy to let others violate their boundaries, that there's something wrong with them if they feel creeped out or intruded upon instead of enjoying being harassed.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries.

No. It's not. It's your active responsibility to verify that you're not violating any boundaries by getting explicit permission to cross them.

That's the core point here, because the vase majority of rapes occur specifically because our culture teaches us that it's the victim's responsibility to actively stop encroachment, not the responsibility of a potential aggressor to obtain clear, enthusiastic consent.

It is good to be able to clarify your boundaries, but the duty for identifying them and getting permission to cross them _always_ lies with the person doing the crossing, never with the person being intruded upon.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
npr

quote:
A number of studies, on college campuses and elsewhere, have shown that having friends who support violence against women is a big risk factor for committing sexual assault. Now prevention efforts are exploring the idea that having male friends who object to violence against women can be a powerful antidote to rape on college campuses.

...

He surveyed about 1,800 men, asking them a wide range of questions about their sexual experiences. To learn about sexual assault he asked things like, "have you ever had sex with an adult when they didn't want to because you used physical force?" When the results came back he was stunned.

All told, 120 men in the sample, or about 6 percent of the total, had raped women they knew. Two-thirds of those men were serial rapists, who had done this, on average, six times. Many of the serial rapists began offending before college, back in high school.

Here is an interesting study to look at involving the rape culture and amazingly it has very little to do with playing a boom box in a driveway and much more to do with peers being passive about abuse of people passed out drunk.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A number of studies, on college campuses and elsewhere, have shown that having friends who support violence against women is a big risk factor for committing sexual assault.
EXACTLY, Yossarian!

Hence the problem with Indian and Pakistani immigrants in England. There's a culture where rape is considered not only an acceptable but a publicly approved tool against enemy tribes. They actually hold court, sentence a woman of another caste or tribe to be raped, and then conduct the rapes in public in front of their children. (both the case in India and the one in pakistan had those trappings). Again, in the Guyarat rapes, indians were raping Muslim women in front of not only the victim's children but in front of the perp's children.

I remember a time in which many americans talked about how a victim dressed as "deserving to be raped" and I don't hear normal Americans talking like that anymore. Today, those that find circles of friends that approve such atrocities, either come from a narrow ethnic subculture (e.g. white trash, off-the-boat central african, etc.) or employ SOCIAL MEDIA to find like minded losers. That's why the middle class gang rapes you hear of are all tied to social media such as facebook.

Pyr's out there crying "rape culture" because our society doesn't set the boundaries he thinks should be set with driveways and property lines. He's diddling while Rome burns.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention
Which is a horrible practice, lazy, rude, and disruptive of people outside of the one that you're communicating with.

Agreed. And yet even your response suggests that it's marginally OK for the "one you're communicating with." Which begs the question of why you're so uptight about a low volume music on a boom box from the driveway.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Trying to sort out Pyr's rape culture argument is like trying to reconstruct a crime scene in a blender. It's difficult to extricate manufactured facts, from distorted analysis, from Pyr's entirely reinvented vocabulary.

Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.

In other words, sites that you choose to slander If you can't honestly represent a position, you should stick to advancing your own, rather misrepresenting others.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Agreed. And yet even your response suggests that it's marginally OK for the "one you're communicating with."


Assuming you have a prior agreement with them that it's okay and are not intruding upon others, sure.

quote:
Which begs the question

Raises the question.

quote:
of why you're so uptight about a low volume music on a boom box from the driveway.
Because it's a clear violation of boundaries that the movie blesses as an okay thing to do, rather than making clear is a fundamentally creepy violation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really, Hollywood has always been horrible about respecting personal boundaries. How many movies see a character "transformed" by a makeover into someone more conventionally attractive and conformist? How many more see a reclusive, introverted loner learn that the true path to happiness lies in expressing himself/herself more often, cutting loose now and then, and finding a core group of wacky, noisy friends to pull him/her out of his/her shell?

Hollywood has always taught that quiet, reclusive people need to be saved from themselves, and no one should ever take "no" for an answer. This is problematic in a lot of ways, but nowhere more so than when applied to romance.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Really, Hollywood has always been horrible about respecting personal boundaries. How many movies see a character "transformed" by a makeover into someone more conventionally attractive and conformist? How many more see a reclusive, introverted loner learn that the true path to happiness lies in expressing himself/herself more often, cutting loose now and then, and finding a core group of wacky, noisy friends to pull him/her out of his/her shell?

Hollywood has always taught that quiet, reclusive people need to be saved from themselves, and no one should ever take "no" for an answer. This is problematic in a lot of ways, but nowhere more so than when applied to romance.

Agreed and I've already addressed this with far better examples, such as the forced kiss that initiates a love scene.

Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

Seriati, au contraire, I was part of the movement in the 1990s when presentations like "Still killing us softly" were showing how the commercial media objectified women's bodies and created a culture in which rape could be viewed as acceptable. Fast forward to today, and "rape culture" is being hurled around not so much by extremist feminist groups so much as by shallow and controlling feminist individuals, in order to enforce, well, anything they want. Disagree with them about anything, and egads, you're enabling rape. Boom boxes in driveways. what will it be next. It's the story of the runaway fatwa.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

It seems to me that if you two are quibbling over whether or not forcing your ex-girlfriend to listen to Phil Collins represents an oppressive crossing of borders, it's really only relevant insofar as one of you has actually stood on someone's driveway and played Phil Collins at them.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir and mounted ever escalating attacks against it as if it were supposed to be a huge issue rather than a small and subtle thing as it was originally presented. I've done my best to try to defend the reasoning why the scene is problematic, but you're not crossing the line into repetitive personal attacks on me enough that I'm not comfortable trying to let them pass anymore. I do my best to keep you separated from your arguments, and I ask the same of you. If you're finding the need to drop my name multiple times in a single post then you've gone well past the line of failing to maintain a separation into outright attacks.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, I said your argument is retentive, not that you are personally anal retentive.

I've agreed with Tom that the behavior is unhealthy. I disagree with you that it crosses personal boundaries in any violative way. I think that using it as an example of "rape culture" is not merely wrong but trivializes rape and mangles the credibility of any kinds of attempts to foster an anti-rape culture.

If you want to simply agree to disagree there, I'm happy to do so.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

It seems to me that if you two are quibbling over whether or not forcing your ex-girlfriend to listen to Phil Collins represents an oppressive crossing of borders, it's really only relevant insofar as one of you has actually stood on someone's driveway and played Phil Collins at them.
I did worse, once; I called an ex-fiancee back in 1989 and sang her one of her favorite songs, "I'll be true to you" by the beatles. I was being a manipulative git, but she'd strung me along for a week before letting me know she'd been seeing someone else, and she deserved the guilt trip. She could have hung up on me. She could have asked me not to call her back. In absence of such requests, I don't believe that I violated her boundaries with the call; I just soiled my own dignity and increased my long distance bill. I was an immature 21 year old who had no business getting engaged in the first place.

[ August 18, 2014, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir and mounted ever escalating attacks against it as if it were supposed to be a huge issue rather than a small and subtle thing as it was originally presented. I've done my best to try to defend the reasoning why the scene is problematic, but you're not crossing the line into repetitive personal attacks on me enough that I'm not comfortable trying to let them pass anymore. I do my best to keep you separated from your arguments, and I ask the same of you. If you're finding the need to drop my name multiple times in a single post then you've gone well past the line of failing to maintain a separation into outright attacks.
Pyr, I admit to having been rough as to your view of the facts. But the reason that I do repeatedly use your name repeatedly in a post is to clarify when what I'm critiquing has to do with something that you have said, as opposed to other memes which I attack far more vigorously, which don't have to do with you at all, such as:

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
(responding to Seriati's suggestion that Pyr was my first introduction to the term "rape culture"
Seriati, au contraire, I was part of the movement in the 1990s when presentations like "Still killing us softly" were showing how the commercial media objectified women's bodies and created a culture in which rape could be viewed as acceptable. Fast forward to today, and "rape culture" is being hurled around not so much by extremist feminist groups so much as by shallow and controlling feminist individuals, in order to enforce, well, anything they want. Disagree with them about anything, and egads, you're enabling rape. Boom boxes in driveways. what will it be next. It's the story of the runaway fatwa.

With that second to last phrase, i guess I did tie you into it all, Pyr. Apologies for that. I don't regard you as one of the "shallow and controlling feminist individuals" that I was talking about. There I'm talking about Marni on facebook and a few other nonOrnerians on FeministMormonHousewives.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir
Well no. Remember, you're the one who keeps using words like "fundamental" and "violation" to refer to the boombox incident. I think that kind of language, applied to something so small, trivializes rape. If you called it a marginal infringement on her consent rather than a fundamental violation of her consent, I'd have let it go. I don't think it infringes on her *consent*, unless she tells him to go away and he refuses. But I'd not have continued the argument if you hadn't declared driveway PhilCollinsing the fundamental cornerstone of the rape issue. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.

Which is a totally made up suggestion. If you've inquired about a romantic relationship and been rejected, that doesn't mean that you should vanish and not be able to continue on on a platonic level afterwards, and a possibility exists that the person you're interested may eventually change their mind. But your suggestion that you should keep leaning on them in a way that they've told you they are currently uninterested in is, in fact, harassment.
See, this is where you refuse to actually make distinctions - notwithstanding your claim that you would in fact be willing to do so. There is an entire range of behavior between platonic friends and engaging in harassment, they are not directly next to each on the line as you are implying. Harrasment is a legal measure, yet you keep pretending that legality is a red herring. Why is that? It's because you are trying to change the definition of harrassment to include legal behaviors, yet retain the negative connataions so you can demonize someone as engaging in harrasment.

No one is required to hide their interest in someone else. To even suggest that is a repression of that person. The object of their desire is free to reject continuing to associate with such person on those terms, but such person is entitled to express their feelings.

If the conduct is unwanted and the object feels it is harrassment they are themselves free to take addtional actions.
quote:
By all means, work on being a good friend, but you don't do any favors by making yourself into a false friend because you're just putting on a pretense to get into their pants. That whole "nice guy" behavoir is exceptionally invasive and emotionally damaging to everyone involved.
Now you've moved into "advice". I never said it was a good plan, I said you have no right to call such a person an abuser, or a harrasser, or part of rape culture. Heck, I knew plenty of women who deliberately invoked such behaviour in young men to manipulate them into providing favors and for attention. And I don't blame them either, it's up to the men to learn self respect and to reject that abusive situation, not up to the law to intervene.
quote:
quote:
And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space.
You're suggesting that somewhere, off camera, he asked if it was okay to confronter on her own property and present himself to her in a way such that she was forced to interact with him instead of freely choosing to do so on her own terms? HE didn't seek permission for his behavior.
No, not suggesting that. I'm flat out saying that your standard is false, that it's not required, and that she was perfectly free to reject him. But that a one time event of this nature from essentially the public right of way is not evidence of entitlement or of inappropriate harrassment. It's literally him asking permission to reenter her life, the fact that he didn't send a notorized form ahead of time to enquire if he had permission to suprise her with a romantic gesture intended to regain her favor is overkill on your part.

He was asking permission by conducting the act.
quote:
He acted as if he was entitled to behave that way- as if it were permissible for him do do that unless stopped, rather than being something that he should seek permission for and not do unless clearly allowed to.
No, it's your unreasonable reading of the act in its context that makes this an event that required permission, rather than the act seeking permission.
quote:
What's more important, though, is that such consent to be approached is not read into public areas that people don't actively come to for socialization by choice. Public transit, grocery stores, etc... Where a person must use them to get about their life. Forcing social interaction in those cases, without some form of explicit context or prior relationship that invites it can actively serve to make those places be regarded as unsafe, if not outright dangerous. which translates in turn to significant social and emotional damage.
Again, nonsensical standards. It's acceptable to interact with people in all public places. It's the conduct itself that determines if its inappropriate not the locale.

If force is involved it's always wrong, but that means actual force, not your misdefined version where talking to someone is force (notwithstanding that one would have to communicate in order to even get permission, creating a feedback loop).
quote:
quote:
Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.
In other words, sites that you choose to slander If you can't honestly represent a position, you should stick to advancing your own, rather misrepresenting others.
Who do you think I'm slandering? Is it your assertion that such cites do not exist? Or that they are mainstream and not extreme? Or is it your assertion that this represented an original thought on your part uninfluenced by other philosophical work on the point?

In my view, you have not represented your position clearly enough to set actual standards of conduct, and that in fact when you move from generalities (where you can imply that there is a wide range of acceptable to conduct), to specifics you demonstrate that the philosophy you're espousing has absolutely no middle ground and that it attempts to demonize the majority of actual human conduct as a violation. Feel free to show me wrong, give us some bright line tough case examples where the conduct is okay. Or articulate the actual standards that cover them.

[ August 19, 2014, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, would you please stop slagging Marni? She's hardly shallow; she just thinks Mormon doctrine is misinterpreted by Mormon culture, and you disagree. Don't harp on someone who's not been even here, just 'cause her own views are diametrically opposed to yours in a way that challenges your own perception of yourself as female-friendly.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
See, this is where you refuse to actually make distinctions - notwithstanding your claim that you would in fact be willing to do so. There is an entire range of behavior between platonic friends and engaging in harassment, they are not directly next to each on the line as you are implying. Harrasment is a legal measure, yet you keep pretending that legality is a red herring. Why is that? It's because you are trying to change the definition of harrassment to include legal behaviors, yet retain the negative connataions so you can demonize someone as engaging in harrasment.
This suggests that harassment wouldn't exist if we didn't legally define it, which is nonsense. Harassment isa kind of behavior. We make it illegal after a certain degree based on the balance between what the largest majority wants to keep legal vs what they want to be protected from other being able to do to them.

By trying to assert current law as a gold standard for how to define any given behavoir, you actively beg the question-law arises from culture; to try to use it as evidence that a given cultural institution is acceptable is circular reasoning.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries."

Absolutely. And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries. You dont have.the right to just suck your thumb and require.the world to.read your mind.

Didn't she clarify her boundaries when she dumped him?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1